Agriculture committee  That's correct.

Agriculture committee  This is directly within the scope of what we work on, because, of course, this is a challenge for Canada and other countries that are taking action to reduce greenhouse gases. We need to do so in a way that both reduces emissions and that doesn't adversely impact our economic act

Agriculture committee  We are looking at it. That's the short answer.

Agriculture committee  The approach you describe is one that we use where we regulate a sector. They have to achieve a certain standard. In doing that, we can reward companies or farmers for doing better than average. An offset is something that you're not required to do. The challenge we have with o

Environment committee  I think I can answer that. The term isn't used elsewhere in the act, as Ms. May has explained. It's a term that's used in the Paris Agreement, and her amendment references the Paris Agreement. My assumption would be that the term would be interpreted as it is used in the Paris A

Environment committee  I think it's just a common understanding that parties are expected to, over time, increase the stringency of their commitments.

Environment committee  That's an interesting question. This section talks about the input the minister needs to consider or enable when developing a target. The bill would make the 2030 target the country's nationally determined commitment. The Paris Agreement doesn't have an explicit set of requiremen

Environment committee  I think the answer to that is that I'm going to, respectfully, suggest that the committee reflect on the testimony of the various witnesses who testified about this issue. As Ms. May just explained, this goes to the question of justiciability. One could not literally make a min

Environment committee  Sorry, I just want to be clear. My apologies if I said you could not hold the minister accountable. You can absolutely hold the minister accountable. The question is this: Can the minister be required on her or his own to reduce emissions? No, of course not. Then, the question is

Environment committee  If you don't mind, I'd like to refer that question to my colleague Mr. Ngan, whose organization in the department has led the consultations on the previous NDCs and has some experience in both leading the consultations and providing reports to Canadians about what we heard.

Environment committee  Maybe I'll refer to Mr. Ngan, but I think the short answer is that it takes us at least a year after a given date to determine what actually happened in that year so that we would in fact be able to report on the interim objective in each of these reports. Vince, do you want to

Environment committee  I have two thoughts. One, as my colleague Mr. Ngan indicated, the lag in collecting the data, doing the modelling and providing the analysis can take up to 18 months. The ability to determine whether the interim objective has been met would depend on the timing of the subsequent

Environment committee  That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the data might not enable us to provide a definitive report on whether or not the interim objective has been met. The report will add value in the sense that it will give Canadians a good sense of how things are progressing.

Environment committee  Yes, I do, if you don't mind, Mr. Chair. This may be inappropriate, but I think it's important to note that this amendment from a wording perspective will not accomplish what Mr. Albas suggests it would. The terms “anthropogenic” and “non-anthropogenic” have clear meanings in th

Environment committee  No, this would not cover that. That would already be covered under our obligation to report anthropogenic sequestration. Planting a tree is a human activity, which then results in the sequestration, which we already report on pursuant to UNFCCC guidelines respecting so-called LUL